Domestic squabbles

EXAMINER EDITORIAL WRITER

Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, September 17, 1997

1997-09-17 04:00:00 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- WE'VE SAID it before, but it bears repeating now that The City appears ready to lose $2 million-a-year in lease revenue: The domestic partners law should not apply to businesses that pay money to The City.

Federal Express is ready to move its local cargo operation from San Francisco International Airport to Oakland if San Francisco officials continue to insist that the company must provide health benefits to the domestic partners of its workers.

"If they decide (to move), that's fine," said San Francisco Airport Director John Martin, who believes a replacement tenant can be found. "We are not going to back down. The airport is going to hold FedEx to the law."

Now, $2 million is not exactly chump change, and The City risks losing millions and millions of dollars in additional revenue as more leases come up for renewal with companies, and other concerns, that do not provide domestic partners benefits.

Another disaster waiting to happen is the lawsuit by United Airlines and other air carriers who seek to nullify the law's effect on them. That case is nearly ready to go to trial.

Eventually, every company engaged in interstate commerce could claim it is not subject to burdensome local ordinances often in conflict with each other.

Related Stories

We say this as enthusiastic supporters of the domestic partners law, which went into effect in June. We think companies have an obligation - of fairness, compassion and consistency - to offer these benefits. But we're worried that The City is digging a hole that could cost taxpayers a bundle and jeopardize the law itself.

If The City wants to restrict its spending to businesses that have domestic partners benefits, that's reasonable - and enforceable. Let The City only buy supplies from and award contracts to those companies.

But it's not reasonable for The City to say, "For the privilege of your giving us your money, we require you to meet the following social obligations."

The law needs to be changed. And if the supervisors aren't smart enough to get out before the avalanche, it's possible that the whole house of cards will be crushed by lawsuits, federal legislation and a calamitous loss of municipal income.

The first step is to call timeout in the campaign to drive FedEx out of The City. If the air express service migrates to Oakland, it will take its $2 million along - and it won't be granting domestic partners benefits to its workers. What does San Francisco win?

If the idea is to provide a model for similar ordinances in other cities, chaos is not a good advertisement. At SFO, director Martin is right to insist on compliance with the law - what other choice does he have? But the supervisors have a responsibility to see that the law accomplishes its purposes over the long run and isn't grandstanding that eventually will wither and die.

As a practical matter, has anyone checked lately on whether, say, the Turlock and Modesto irrigation districts pay domestic partners benefits? Is San Francisco planning to cancel its contracts with the valley districts that buy Hetch Hetchy power? Losing those energy sales could cost $50 million a year. Also waiting are hundreds of other revenue death traps.

Why tilt at (expensive) windmills?

Politics, after all, is supposed to be the art of the possible. The impossible should be left to theologians.&lt;